[Owasp-leaders] Owasp Inquiry on "Cenzic patent on 'Fault injection methods and apparatus' "

Hoyt LLC h02332 at gmail.com
Sun Feb 27 07:56:32 EST 2011


Hello and Good Day-

First off, an intro, David Hoyt, OWASP-Vermont.. a new chapter... with a
hello to all owasp-leaders.

Second. I have attorneys on staff and will donate time and resources with
respect to the patent infringement issues being investigated.

I'll get on the correct list and look forward to help in any way possible.

Best;

David




On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 23:25, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:

> Tim,
>
> We already have https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-legal set
> up. It's been dead for a while but I think its a good place to encourage
> lawyers who wish to donate time to congregate and chat about relevant
> appsec legal issues.
>
> I'm eager to get this rolling. Let me know how I can help. I know of at
> least 3 lawyers in the OWASP community who would jump in.
>
> - Jim
>
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > Yes, you're right, we don't need board's permission. I have asked my
> friend
> > to see if he can point me to a patent lawyer who can help receive the
> patent
> > on pro bono basis.
> >
> > We will need board's signature later and we do need to coordinate so that
> > OWASP is not pursuing redundant efforts or conflicting strategies.
> Perhaps
> > Jim and I can coordinate these efforts.
> >
> > I will also ask legal counsel at work to see if they know any lawyer
> > interested to work for a non profit on pro bono basis. I will talk to
> > Mandeep offline to see how likely they will want to license us the patent
> > and how to proceed.
> >
> > Leaders, let us know if you have any thoughts/input on OWASP licensing
> the
> > patent in question.
> >
> > Tin
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> We do not need the boards approval, as Jeff has pointed out many times.
> >> Let's get a few lawyers together who are kind enough to do this for
> free.
> >>
> >> It would be a gift if these lawyers would professionally research this
> >> issue and inform OWASP of their opinion over this matter.
> >>
> >> Go for it, and I'll offer to coordinate these efforts if no one else
> steps
> >> up.
> >>
> >> -Jim Manico
> >> http://manico.net
> >>
> >> On Feb 19, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Tin Zaw <tin.zaw at owasp.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Abe,
> >>
> >> Thank you for pointing out a couple of important points -- OWASP may be
> at
> >> risk on patent infringement and OWASP needs to consult with a lawyer.
> >>
> >> There is a possibility that Cenzic will license the patent in question
> to
> >> OWASP, free of charge. They can't publicly comment as they are in the
> middle
> >> of a law suit, so this is a situation that our lawyers need to talk to
> their
> >> lawyers on getting the patent license.
> >>
> >> I believe we can, as OWASP leaders, seek out a lawyer who is interested
> in
> >> this case on pro bono basis and introduce to the board. The board should
> >> take it from there.
> >>
> >> I can contact a friend of mine who is a patent law professor to see if
> any
> >> lawyer interested to represent OWASP on pro bono. I don't want to
> duplicate
> >> the effort though, if the board has its own plans underway.
> >>
> >> What does the board think?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Abraham Kang < <abraham.kang at owasp.org
> >
> >> abraham.kang at owasp.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I forgot to mention that many law firms are required to do pro bono
> work.
> >>> OWASP being a non-profit might qualify for free legal advice.
> >>>
> >>> If someone can give me authorization (to be OWASP's agent in this
> >>> matter) I can try try to contact some law firms to see if they would be
> >>> willing to help us out.
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Abe
> >>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Abraham Kang < <
> abraham.kang at owasp.org>
> >>> abraham.kang at owasp.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> DISCLAIMER:  I am not a lawyer.  OWASP needs to seek council of a
> >>>> licensed attorney.  Any opinions stated here are of a student from an
> >>>> academic perspective.
> >>>>
> >>>> After reviewing all of the comments.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have a strong feeling that the companies that are being sued will be
> >>>> putting forth the corresponding arguements to fight the Cenzic patent.
> >>>>
> >>>> Patent defense is usually a costly endeavor (legal fees, experts,
> etc.).
> >>>> I feel that OWASP should stay out of the fight against the Cenzic
> patent.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, it should be noted that if OWASP knows of Cenzic's patent and
> >>>> understands that some of their products may infringe, OWASP could
> become a
> >>>> willful infringer. Which would result in enhanced damages if sued.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think it would be a good idea for someone at OWASP to contact legal
> >>>> council at Cenzic.  In addition, it might be a good idea to freeze all
> work
> >>>> on possibly infringing OWASP projects as well as stopping distriubtion
> of
> >>>> potentially infringing products.
> >>>>
> >>>> Again, OWASP needs to contact a licensed attorney to understand all of
> >>>> the implications of the Cenzic patent.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Abe
> >>>>   On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Jim Manico < <jim.manico at owasp.org
> >
> >>>> jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> >From an "almost Lawyer"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ****
> >>>>>
> >>>>> First I want to preface this with a disclaimer.  Although I have
> >>>>> graduated
> >>>>> from Lincoln Law School of San Jose.  I am not a lawyer.  To get
> >>>>> adequate
> >>>>> advice I recommend seeking council of a licensed attorney.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After skimming the MPEP, there are two direct means to challenge a
> >>>>> patent.
> >>>>> Inter parte and ex parte reexamination.  Prior art is used as
> evidence
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> claims in a patent invalid due to novelty, non-obviousness, or
> violated
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> statuory bar.  Prior art in reexaminations is limited to prior
> patents
> >>>>> or
> >>>>> printed publications.  There are also specific procedures which need
> to
> >>>>> be
> >>>>> followed when submitting prior art including serving the patent
> holder
> >>>>> with
> >>>>> a copy of the prior art.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The specific details are in MPEP section 2200-.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It probably would be a good idea to gather as much prior art using
> the
> >>>>> "community" before making the formal request for inter parte or ex
> parte
> >>>>> reexamination.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Funny old world.....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sent from my HTC hero.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> owasp board member
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 18 Feb 2011 15:14, "Mark Curphey" < <mark at curphey.com>
> >>>>> mark at curphey.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  Pure FYI and not that it has any relevance whatsoever to this but
> >>>>> cenzic
> >>>>>> was founded by HB Gary (Penny and Greg). Hmmmm.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sent from my Phone
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:30 AM, "Eoin" < <eoin.keary at owasp.org>
> >>>>> eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Who on the list uses Cenzic?
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>  > _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> >>>>>> <OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org>OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> >>>>>> <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders>
> >>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> >>>>> <OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org>OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> >>>>> <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders>
> >>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> >>>  <OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org>OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> >>>  <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders>
> >>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tin Zaw, CISSP, CSSLP
> >> Chapter Leader and President, OWASP Los Angeles Chapter<
> http://www.owaspla.org/>
> >> Chair, OWASP Global Chapter Committee<
> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Global_Chapter_Committee>|
> >> Google Voice: (213) 973-9295
> >> LinkedIn: <http://www.linkedin.com/in/tinzaw>
> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/tinzaw
> >>
> >>  _______________________________________________
> >> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> >> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> >> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> >> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> >> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20110227/c5840aa1/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list